'''Pascal's Wager''' is the [[argument]] in the form of a wager (instead of the common logic arguments with premises and conclusion) that states that you should [[believe]] in [[God]] even if there's a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, namely going to [[hell]], is so undesirable that it is more prudent to take our chances with belief. Based on simple [[probability]] theory, the argument was first formally put forth by [[Blaise Pascal]], a 17th-century philosopher and mathematician.

+

'''Pascal's Wager''' is the [[argument]] that states that you should [[believe]] in [[God]] even if there's a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, namely going to [[hell]], is so undesirable that it is more prudent to take our chances with belief.

−

Atheists commonly encounter this argument in the form of the question, "'''What if you're wrong'''?"

+

==Background information==

+

Based on simple [[probability]] theory, the argument was first formally put forth by [[Blaise Pascal]], a 17th-century philosopher and mathematician.

−

==Apologetics==

+

This is one of the most common arguments presented for god which atheists commonly encounter in the form of the question, "'''What if you're wrong'''?"

+

==Apologetics==

+

===Overview===

God might or might not exist. It is a gamble whether you believe in him or not. As with any gamble, we should consider the [[odds]].

God might or might not exist. It is a gamble whether you believe in him or not. As with any gamble, we should consider the [[odds]].

−

Pascal described the payoff of this gamble as follows: If God does not exist, then you neither gain nor lose anything from belief or disbelief. In either case, you just die and that's the end. However, if you choose to believe in God, and you are right, then the reward is infinite &mdash; eternal bliss in heaven. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're right, you ''gain'' nothing. But if you are wrong, your payoff is negative infinity &mdash; eternal suffering in hell.

+

Pascal described the payoff of this gamble as follows: If God does not exist, then you neither gain nor lose anything from belief or disbelief. In either case, you just die and that's the end. However, if you choose to believe in God, and you are right, then the reward is infinite: Eternal bliss in heaven. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're wrong, your pay off is negative infinity: Eternal suffering in hell.

To summarize:

To summarize:

Line 26:

Line 29:

|}

|}

−

Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, just on the small chance that he might exist, you'd better believe. It's the only wager that makes sense.

+

Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favour of believing in God, just on the small chance that he might exist, you'd better believe. It's the only wager that makes sense.

This argument, as can be seen, is based in the same logic of a lottery wager. The differences in this case is that in the lottery, if you lose the reward, you also lose the money you payed for the card, while Pascal states that, by believing in God, you lose ''nothing''.

This argument, as can be seen, is based in the same logic of a lottery wager. The differences in this case is that in the lottery, if you lose the reward, you also lose the money you payed for the card, while Pascal states that, by believing in God, you lose ''nothing''.

::p2. if god is real you receive infinite punishment for disbelief or infinite payoff for belief

+

::::a. if you believe you go to heaven for eternity.

+

::::b. if you do not believe you go to hell for eternity.

+

::p3. if god is not real you don't really loose or gain anything either way.

+

::::a. if you believe falsely that god does exist you haven't really lost anything.

+

::::b. if you don't believe and it turns out god doesn't exist then you don't really gain anything.

+

::c1. Therefore even if there is strong evidence against god it is still better to believe.

+

::::a. the payoff for believing if there is a god, is infinitely better than the benefit for not believing if there's no god.

+

::::b. the punishment for not believing if there is a god, is infinitely worse than the loss caused by believing falsely that there is a god.

−

===Nonzero payoff for atheism===

+

==Counter Arguments==

+

===False Premise p2: Begging the question===

+

Pascals wager commits the fallacy of begging the question, by assuming in its premises, certain characteristics about the very god the argument is intended to prove.

+

+

Rather than the typical christian god, what if we hypothesise the possibility of [http://www.dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_019.htm a god who rewards skeptical thinking unbelievers] and punishes credulous believers? Such a god would be consistent with the fall-back response of theologians "we cannot understand the ways of god", so it is feasible that such a god would want to reward atheists. This god would not need to be malevolent, merely inactive (mirroring deism with regards to creation), and wanting to reward those who take a rational, logical, reasonable, and or skeptical approach to their beliefs.

+

+

The new table including a [[Maltheist]] god may look like this:

+

{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="margin:1em 2em;"

+

! Table of Payoffs

+

! Believe in God

+

! Don't believe in God

+

|- align="center"

+

! align="left" | God doesn't exist

+

| 0

+

| 0

+

|- align="center"

+

! align="left" | Legalistic religious god exists

+

| +&infin; (heaven)

+

| &minus;&infin; (hell)

+

|- align="center"

+

! align="left" | Anti-conventional god exists

+

| &minus;&infin; (hell)

+

| +&infin; (heaven)

+

|}

+

The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal.

+

+

If you can accept Pascal's Wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Lacking specific evidence about the nature of the true religious faith, there are an infinite number of possible requirements for going to heaven and avoiding hell. Maybe only those who collect stamps go to heaven. Maybe you have to [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Site support|donate]] $10 a week to Iron Chariots for life. Why quibble about a few measly dollars if it will save you from eternal hellfire?

In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero.

In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero.

Line 44:

Line 85:

And by the way, you don't lose pork.

And by the way, you don't lose pork.

−

===Which religion?===

+

===Special Pleading: Which religion?===

−

Even if you buy into Pascal's Wager and decide you should believe, that doesn't give any basis for choosing which religion to believe in. [[Fundamentalist]]s often use the wager to prove that you should be a Fundamentalist, but of course, Pascal was [[Catholic]] and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic.

+

Even if we ignore the logical fallacy of [[begging the question]], an accept the second premise, that still doesn't tell us which religion to believe in. Any Abrahamic religion, or Abrahamic like religion, which has some form of afterlife and values belief above action, can be argued with Pascals wager.

−

This just highlights the whole problem of which religion is the right one. Since many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell, Pascal's not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the [[Jew]]s are correct, or perhaps the [[Muslim]]s, or if [[reincarnation]] is right. The best wager, it seems, would be to choose the religion with the worst punishment for non-belief and the best reward for belief.

+

Pascal himself was [[Catholic]] and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic. This just highlights the problem, as many [[Fundamentalists]] believe that Catholics are going to go to hell. Pascal's it seems, is not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the [[Jew]]s are correct, or perhaps the [[Muslim]]s, or if [[Buddhist]] [[reincarnation]] is right.

+

If you are a Christian, and it turns out Islam is the correct faith, you will spend the rest of eternity in the Islamic hell. Can you calculate the odds on that? The best wager, it seems, would be to choose the religion with the worst punishment for non-belief and the best reward for belief.

+

+

==Other counter arguments==

===Atheist's Wager===

===Atheist's Wager===

The [[Atheist's Wager]] is a variant of Pascal's Wager which divides the gods who reward faith and the gods who reward works finds that it is better to not-believe and do good works, for maximum benefit. If one takes into account that rewarding and punishing based on [[faith]] in a deity without [[Argument from nonbelief|reasonable evidence to believe]] that god is evil and spending your time sucking up to a such a deity is a waste of time. If one discounts the possibility of a God who sends good people to hell for bad reasons, we are left with a completely different payoff table.

The [[Atheist's Wager]] is a variant of Pascal's Wager which divides the gods who reward faith and the gods who reward works finds that it is better to not-believe and do good works, for maximum benefit. If one takes into account that rewarding and punishing based on [[faith]] in a deity without [[Argument from nonbelief|reasonable evidence to believe]] that god is evil and spending your time sucking up to a such a deity is a waste of time. If one discounts the possibility of a God who sends good people to hell for bad reasons, we are left with a completely different payoff table.

Line 87:

Line 131:

Regardless of one's belief about a benevolent God, the results still favor a Good Life. Pascal's wager relies on the judgments of an evil God who sends good people to hell for not believing in him. Moreover, because there are an infinite number of possible such God's getting the right answer is a 1 in &infin;. Even if a faith rewarding God existed, believing in an incorrect faith-rewarding God for might anger such a god more than not believing in any gods with [[Evidentiary argument|good reasons]].

Regardless of one's belief about a benevolent God, the results still favor a Good Life. Pascal's wager relies on the judgments of an evil God who sends good people to hell for not believing in him. Moreover, because there are an infinite number of possible such God's getting the right answer is a 1 in &infin;. Even if a faith rewarding God existed, believing in an incorrect faith-rewarding God for might anger such a god more than not believing in any gods with [[Evidentiary argument|good reasons]].

−

===The faith of the wager===

+

===Definitions: Belief===

Even if one assumes that the wager applies to the Christian god, would he really accept the kind of faith it promotes? The wager doesn't promote true, deep faith; it promotes a fake faith. The person simply pretends to be convinced because they're afraid of the punishment for not believing. The wager is simply an attempt to force the person to believe (see [[argumentum ad baculum]]). (Or, perhaps more accurately, it attempts to force the person to ''act as if'' he or she believes — that is, it serves as an instrument of [[social control]].)

Even if one assumes that the wager applies to the Christian god, would he really accept the kind of faith it promotes? The wager doesn't promote true, deep faith; it promotes a fake faith. The person simply pretends to be convinced because they're afraid of the punishment for not believing. The wager is simply an attempt to force the person to believe (see [[argumentum ad baculum]]). (Or, perhaps more accurately, it attempts to force the person to ''act as if'' he or she believes — that is, it serves as an instrument of [[social control]].)

−

===Where does it end?===

+

An analogy to this would be a child that professes belief in Santa Claus out of fear that they will not otherwise receive presents, knowing full well that the presents were left under the tree are really from his or her parents.

−

If you can accept Pascal's Wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Why even assume that God supports any existing religion? Perhaps there is a perverse God who likes critical thinkers and doesn't like "blind" followers. Perhaps all atheists will eventually [http://www.dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_019.htm find themselves in heaven &mdash; completely surprised, but pleased anyway] &mdash; while their Christian counterparts burn for eternity! Perhaps there is a [[Maltheist]] God.

+

+

===Moral implications===

+

There are deep moral implications to Pascal's wager if the argument is taken to its logical conclusions. It promotes the idea that beliefs are more important actions. Or more precisely that [[apostasy]] is the only unforgivable sin.

+

+

The central tenant of substitutionary atonement in Christianity, means that you can spend your life murdering, raping, killing, waging genocide, etc, and as long as you accept Jesus Christ as lord and saviour before you die, you are entitled to an eternity of pleasure in heaven.

+

+

However, on the other hand, a non believer who spends a good honest life helping others, is damned to spend an eternity being tortured in hell despite their good deeds.

+

+

This is illustrated in the ''[[Gun Slinger (Chick tract)]]''.

+

+

==Links==

+

===See Also===

+

* [[Begging the question]]

+

* [[Special pleading]]

+

* [[Belief]]

+

* [[Apostasy]]

−

Lacking specific evidence about the nature of the true religious faith, there are an infinite number of possible requirements for going to heaven and avoiding hell. Maybe only those who collect stamps go to heaven. Maybe you have to [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Site support|donate]] $10 a week to Iron Chariots for life. Why quibble about a few measly dollars if it will save you from eternal hellfire?

Pascal's Wager is the argument that states that you should believe in God even if there's a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, namely going to hell, is so undesirable that it is more prudent to take our chances with belief.

Background information

Based on simple probability theory, the argument was first formally put forth by Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century philosopher and mathematician.

This is one of the most common arguments presented for god which atheists commonly encounter in the form of the question, "What if you're wrong?"

Apologetics

Overview

God might or might not exist. It is a gamble whether you believe in him or not. As with any gamble, we should consider the odds.

Pascal described the payoff of this gamble as follows: If God does not exist, then you neither gain nor lose anything from belief or disbelief. In either case, you just die and that's the end. However, if you choose to believe in God, and you are right, then the reward is infinite: Eternal bliss in heaven. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're wrong, your pay off is negative infinity: Eternal suffering in hell.

To summarize:

Table of Payoffs

Believe in God

Don't believe in God

God doesn't exist

0

0

God exists

+∞ (heaven)

−∞ (hell)

Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favour of believing in God, just on the small chance that he might exist, you'd better believe. It's the only wager that makes sense.

This argument, as can be seen, is based in the same logic of a lottery wager. The differences in this case is that in the lottery, if you lose the reward, you also lose the money you payed for the card, while Pascal states that, by believing in God, you lose nothing.

Syllogism

p2. if god is real you receive infinite punishment for disbelief or infinite payoff for belief

a. if you believe you go to heaven for eternity.

b. if you do not believe you go to hell for eternity.

p3. if god is not real you don't really loose or gain anything either way.

a. if you believe falsely that god does exist you haven't really lost anything.

b. if you don't believe and it turns out god doesn't exist then you don't really gain anything.

c1. Therefore even if there is strong evidence against god it is still better to believe.

a. the payoff for believing if there is a god, is infinitely better than the benefit for not believing if there's no god.

b. the punishment for not believing if there is a god, is infinitely worse than the loss caused by believing falsely that there is a god.

Counter Arguments

False Premise p2: Begging the question

Pascals wager commits the fallacy of begging the question, by assuming in its premises, certain characteristics about the very god the argument is intended to prove.

Rather than the typical christian god, what if we hypothesise the possibility of a god who rewards skeptical thinking unbelievers and punishes credulous believers? Such a god would be consistent with the fall-back response of theologians "we cannot understand the ways of god", so it is feasible that such a god would want to reward atheists. This god would not need to be malevolent, merely inactive (mirroring deism with regards to creation), and wanting to reward those who take a rational, logical, reasonable, and or skeptical approach to their beliefs.

The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal.

If you can accept Pascal's Wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Lacking specific evidence about the nature of the true religious faith, there are an infinite number of possible requirements for going to heaven and avoiding hell. Maybe only those who collect stamps go to heaven. Maybe you have to donate $10 a week to Iron Chariots for life. Why quibble about a few measly dollars if it will save you from eternal hellfire?

False Premise p3: Nonzero cost of belief

In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero.

For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying "Okay, I believe now" and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate a tenth of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real.

That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages. Also, in the US, churches don't have to pay taxes, which includes property tax. Property tax is what goes to schools, so all the land that churches own is sucking money out of schools.

When "God Did It" becomes an acceptable answer, there is little incentive to continue exploring the question. More damaging, the "success" of this theory encourages one to apply it to other areas of human understanding. Practiced in this manner, theism can actively discourage human knowledge by compelling people to follow an arbitrary code of conduct, rather than one based on logic and reason.

And by the way, you don't lose pork.

Special Pleading: Which religion?

Even if we ignore the logical fallacy of begging the question, an accept the second premise, that still doesn't tell us which religion to believe in. Any Abrahamic religion, or Abrahamic like religion, which has some form of afterlife and values belief above action, can be argued with Pascals wager.

Pascal himself was Catholic and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic. This just highlights the problem, as many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell. Pascal's it seems, is not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the Jews are correct, or perhaps the Muslims, or if Buddhistreincarnation is right.

If you are a Christian, and it turns out Islam is the correct faith, you will spend the rest of eternity in the Islamic hell. Can you calculate the odds on that? The best wager, it seems, would be to choose the religion with the worst punishment for non-belief and the best reward for belief.

Other counter arguments

Atheist's Wager

The Atheist's Wager is a variant of Pascal's Wager which divides the gods who reward faith and the gods who reward works finds that it is better to not-believe and do good works, for maximum benefit. If one takes into account that rewarding and punishing based on faith in a deity without reasonable evidence to believe that god is evil and spending your time sucking up to a such a deity is a waste of time. If one discounts the possibility of a God who sends good people to hell for bad reasons, we are left with a completely different payoff table.

Summary:

If one does not believe in God.

Table of Payoffs

Good Life

Evil Life

Benevolent God Exists

+∞ (heaven)

−∞ (hell)

No God Exists

+finite

-finite

If one believes in God.

Table of Payoffs

Good Life

Evil Life

Benevolent God Exists

+∞ (heaven)

−∞ (hell)

No God Exists

+finite

-finite

Regardless of one's belief about a benevolent God, the results still favor a Good Life. Pascal's wager relies on the judgments of an evil God who sends good people to hell for not believing in him. Moreover, because there are an infinite number of possible such God's getting the right answer is a 1 in ∞. Even if a faith rewarding God existed, believing in an incorrect faith-rewarding God for might anger such a god more than not believing in any gods with good reasons.

Definitions: Belief

Even if one assumes that the wager applies to the Christian god, would he really accept the kind of faith it promotes? The wager doesn't promote true, deep faith; it promotes a fake faith. The person simply pretends to be convinced because they're afraid of the punishment for not believing. The wager is simply an attempt to force the person to believe (see argumentum ad baculum). (Or, perhaps more accurately, it attempts to force the person to act as if he or she believes — that is, it serves as an instrument of social control.)

An analogy to this would be a child that professes belief in Santa Claus out of fear that they will not otherwise receive presents, knowing full well that the presents were left under the tree are really from his or her parents.

Moral implications

There are deep moral implications to Pascal's wager if the argument is taken to its logical conclusions. It promotes the idea that beliefs are more important actions. Or more precisely that apostasy is the only unforgivable sin.

The central tenant of substitutionary atonement in Christianity, means that you can spend your life murdering, raping, killing, waging genocide, etc, and as long as you accept Jesus Christ as lord and saviour before you die, you are entitled to an eternity of pleasure in heaven.

However, on the other hand, a non believer who spends a good honest life helping others, is damned to spend an eternity being tortured in hell despite their good deeds.